I’m always on the lookout for a GOOD version of my favourite book. So far, my favourite is the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton. Jane is spritely enough but doesn’t have quite enough edge for my taste. Still, it’s decent.

I have been very excited about this version, however, ever since I heard that Ellen Page would be playing Jane. I knew that she would get the sharp wit of Jane exactly right, even if she is too pretty. She’d even have the perfect wry smile that I see on Jane’s face whenever she calls Mr. Rochester “sir”.

Then Ellen Page dropped out and they cast that chick from The Kids Are All Right instead. But I was still willing to give it a chance.

…I regret it.

It was dreadful. Possibly one of the worst adaptations I’ve seen yet.

You won’t believe me, but I swear, I’m not an impossible-to-please cynic who complains about every cut scene, and every alteration to the plot in a book adaptation. Some of my favourite book adaptations (About A Boy, The Neverending Story, The Last Unicorn, Bridget Jone’s Diary, Jurassic Park), have totally altered key parts of the books, but recreate the characters, the feel, and the meaning of the story so well that I love them to bits.

This was not one of those movies.

This movie stuck to the plot faithfully but managed to totally wreck the characters and the whole point of the story. They took a story about a feisty little feminist who doesn’t let poverty and abuse get her down, and made a movie about an expressionless dishrag who falls in love with someone awful for no good reason. You know, like Twilight, except Bella Swan has more personality.

It also involved a lot of emo chiaroscuro and a softly wailing solo violin.

For those of you who aren’t intimately familiar with Jane Eyre and her awesomeness, here’s a summary in 30 seconds:

Jane’s relatives: “We don’tlove you because you’re poor and you aren’t pretty.”

Jane: “Fuck you, I’m just as worthy of love and kindness as anyone else.”

—

Mr. Brocklehurst: “You are poor and ugly and female and therefore do not deserve food or comfort.”

Jane: “Fuck you, I have basic human rights, you douchewad. Oh, and when all my friends die of typhus because of the appalling conditions here, you’re going to be in so much shit.”

—

Mr. Rochester: “I’m going to mock you because you’re young and innocent. You’ve never even had sex, have you?”

Jane: “Fuck you, that’s not love. Mr. Rochester was a jerk, but he loved me for who I am and he liked my spunk.”

—

Jane: “Hey, Rochester, I heard that your wife killed herself and that you’re all blind and helpless now. I like that in a man. By the way, I’m rich and powerful now.”

Mr. Rochester: “Hurray! Will you marry me and boss me around forever?”

Jane: “Damn straight.”

None of Jane’s fiery nature comes out in this newest adaptation. It’s basically a story about this plain, stony faced girl who stands around and watches stuff happen to her with a slightly confused look on her face.

I know that Mia whatserface can act, because I’ve seen her in other things, so this must have been a directing choice. The result was that I didn’t give a damn about what happened to this woman. I swear, she hardly changed facial expressions throughout the whole movie. It’s about as exciting as watching paint dry.

This is the 2011 version of Jane Eyre:

Jane’s relatives: “We don’t like you for some undisclosed reason.”

*solo violin*

Jane:

—

Mr. Brocklehurst: “I don’t like you either for some undisclosed reason.”

*solo violin*

Jane:

—

Mr. Rochester: “I’m going to insult you and mock you because you are a governess.”

Mr. Rochester: “Now we are in love and happy. I’m going to dress you in expensive clothes and it will make you marvellously happy.”

*solo violin*

Jane:

Mr. Rochester: By the way, I have a wife and she’s fond of me but crazy. She doesn’t like you much.

*solo violin*

Jane:

*LOTS of solo violin*

—

St. John: I saved your life, I gave you a job, I’m being very nice to you, and by the way, you’re rich now. Will you marry me?

*solo violin*

Jane:

—

Mrs. Fairfax: “I’m at Thornfield’s smoldering remains for some reason. Probably because I’m Judi Dench and I wanted more screen time in this shit film. By the way, Mr. Rochester’s wife is dead. I’m going to hug you now.”

*solo violin*

Jane:

…And they lived happily ever after!

*solo violin*

*zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzOHTHANKGODITSOVER*

On the bright side, I like the name “Fassbender.” It sounds like an insult. FASSBENDER!

ROFLMAO.
Now I MUST see it. (I only recently sat through the 2009 (?) version with dishy Toby and ICOULDWATCHHERPETULANTLIPALLDAY Ruth Wilson. Quite liked it.. far from obsessed though. JE is not my favourite period novel 😉
as for FASSBENDER!!! – PMSL.. I will – with your kind permission – adopt it as a new expletive, alongsinde PlaceboBrain and Twuppet. Every time I read that name though I think of Rainer Werner Fassbinder.. great movies he made, died way too young.
not sure I’m looking forward to JE the violined version but consider it my duty now. will report back.

And I usually try very hard not to knock celebrities, because I know it must be CRAZY hard to have criticism hurled at you all the time like that, but that expression right there is EXACTLY why anything with Scarlett Johansson in it drives me a little bit postal (Why?).

I haven’t seen the new movie yet but I was all excited to based on the trailer…I’d been avoiding the clip that apple trailers has so as not to spoil the movie for myself but after reading your review I watched it and at least from that little bit I have to concur. Not a fan of Mia Wasikowska as Jane.

Have you seen the 2006 BBC version with Ruth Wilson? I think she is definitely the best Jane of any of the versions that I’ve seen, though I’ll agree that Timothy Dalton makes the best Mr. Rochester!
I also love Jane Eyre the musical!

But I think the most entertaining(ly ridiculous) adaptation is the 1973 one. It’s word for word from the book, complete with voiceover for Jane’s thoughts, and has the most bizarre blocking and directing choices. 🙂

But then again there is Mr. Rochester’s atrocious mustache in the 1997 version…

I actually loved the movie, but I really believe that books should not be compared to their film adaptations. The mediums are too different. All they have in common is that they are narratives. Since I stopped trying to compare books and movies, I enjoy the movies more.

I agree to a point. Like I said, I don’t care if they change the narrative. Often the movie is BETTER when they don’t try to stick to the book point for point. You should alter the narrative to fit the medium, but use the medium to convey the same message.

Some movies do this excellently.

This is not one of them.

Other movies are so different from the book titles that they don’t seem to be connected at all. But they can still be excellent AS MOVIES.

This is not one of them.

They tried to showcase the book with a camera, and it doesn’t work. Better to alter the story to make Rochester seem disarming, to make Jane seem witty and feisty, to make the mad wife truly creepy, than to churn out a bleak and maudlin cardboard cut out of the basic prose.

I’d be interested to know what you liked about the movie, because in my mind, the connection with the book was the only thing that made it tolerable.

If I hadn’t been familiar with the book, I think I would have been so bored that I would have walked out. I LOVE Jane and Rochester, and this movie still made me dislike the characters. If I didn’t have the book to go by, I would have disliked the movie even more, I think, because I would have been like “What does she SEE in him? She should marry that St John guy!” and “what did the dead redhead have to do with anything??” and “what, she’s rich? What a weird subplot. They mention it in one scene and it never comes up again. WTF?”

Ahh, I was going to look up your review and re-read actually, so thanks for the easy linkage. 🙂 I don’t agree with it completely, now that I’ve actually seen it … just agree with most of it, or at least I can definitely see where you’re coming from! Those violins were really getting on my nerves, to start with. 😉

Jane Eyre has been my favourite book since I was 10 – I was really excited about this movie – but I think I’ll go into it a little more warily now! ‘Expect the worst and you’ll sometimes be pleasantly surprised’ is my motto :p
Very funny summary by the way – so true!

I always liked Jean Rhys’s prequel, ‘Wide Sargasso Sea’ better. If a film includes a lot of so-called meaningful looks I lose patience and hope something better’s on.

I can never take Judi Dench seriously as an actress since her 5 minutes in Shakespeare In Love (the Shakespearean equivalent of Marlon Brando as Superman’s dad). I wouldn’t be surprised if her appearance was greeted by audience applause!

I hated Wide Sargasso Sea. I’m a purist by nature, and a lot of WSS clashed with the original Jane Eyre. For example, in WSS they say that “Bertha” wasn’t Rochester’s wife’s real name – that he just called her that. But if that was the case, why did her own brother called her Bertha in Jane Eyre, and why was her name Bertha on the official marriage document?

Hello, I LOVED everything u wrote about This movie, althought I liked while watching it because I didn t read the book. But everything u said makes a lot of sense. I would expect more vigor from an early feminist. And another point, I am too infatuated by Michael Fassbender, to care so much. I could completely UNDERSTAND the “God HELP ME!” to run away from Him. I don t know how faithfully he played the character, but I understand her falling in love without many dialogues or even with summarized dialogues. F… Fassbender…. By the way, watch a completely different movie with him and u will understand> “FISH TANK”

Jane Eyre is my absolute favorite book of all time! I really didn’t care for this movie either. It was beautifully shot and such but…I kept thinking, Mr. Rochester is way too good looking…isn’t he supposed to be somewhat grotesque, doesn’t Jane fall for him in spite of his looks? I think that’s why my favorite version is the 90s one starring Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds…(But, I have not yet seen the 2006 version, I plan on watching soon.) Plan on also watching Fassbender ‘s other movies, where I won’t hold his incredibly good-lookingness against him.

I don’t think he’s supposed to be grotesque, just not the Victorian ideal of male beauty. At the time they liked tall, willowy men with lady-like features. Mr. Rochester is described as muscular, stocky, with a big head and a wide jaw. Not handsome, but “rugged”.

But you hit the nail on the head – Jane falls in love with him despite his looks, which means they should really show some of his charming personality. We need a REASON!

I also want to see the 2006 version. The Squeee gave it a good review.